Honeymoon murder: SC declines to stay Sonam Raghuvanshi bail granted by HC

The Supreme Court on Friday, 3 July declined to stay the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, prime accused in the alleged murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in Meghalaya in 2025, while indicating it was not convinced by the reasoning adopted by Meghalaya High Court.

A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Sheel Nagu said it had "reservations" about the high court's order but noted that Raghuvanshi had already been released from custody and was staying in Shillong in compliance with conditions imposed by the trial court. In those circumstances, the bench refused to suspend the bail order.

Appearing for the Meghalaya government, solicitor-general Tushar Mehta argued that the allegations against Raghuvanshi were grave and she had been granted bail solely on a technical ground relating to the arrest procedure.

Describing the case as "really shocking", Mehta urged the court to stay the high court's order, which upheld bail on the ground that the complete grounds of arrest had not been supplied.

"This is the case where both of them went on honeymoon in Meghalaya. It was a premeditated murder. There were three of her accomplices. She killed the husband on a hill and threw the dead body into a gorge. The three assailants and the lady herself were part of the physical assault. She absconded and was later arrested from a place in Uttar Pradesh," Mehta submitted.

He argued that if the bail order remained in force, Raghuvanshi could abscond. Referring to the transit remand proceedings before a magistrate in Uttar Pradesh, Mehta said the magistrate had specifically recorded satisfaction that the grounds of arrest had been communicated to her.

The solicitor-general further pointed out that several earlier bail pleas filed by Raghuvanshi had been rejected and that none of those applications had raised the issue of non-supply of the grounds of arrest.

He also submitted that the investigating agency had merely made a typographical error by citing Section 403(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita instead of Section 103(1), which deals with punishment for murder, and argued that the high court had wrongly treated this as a sufficient basis to uphold bail.

When the bench sought an update on the trial, Mehta said proceedings were underway and that four of the 94 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far.

Addressing Raghuvanshi's counsel, the bench observed, "Prima facie, we have some reservation with the high court's judgment. The way the high court has dealt with the issue, we have a reservation with that."

Justice Sundresh noted that the magistrate's order recorded that the grounds of arrest had been explained to Raghuvanshi and questioned why the issue had not been raised in her earlier bail applications. "After that, somehow, wisdom dawned on you and you raised this ground. Is the court right in granting bail on the technical ground that a wrong provision was quoted, especially when bail was rejected on merits earlier?" the judge asked.

Counsel for Raghuvanshi maintained that the grounds of arrest had never been properly communicated to her. He argued that during the transit remand proceedings she was not represented by a lawyer and had merely been handed a memo.

Justice Sundresh questioned whether such an objection could be raised at a much later stage. "If bail is granted only on this reason, the State is not barred under the law from arresting her again," the bench observed.

The defence, however, submitted that Raghuvanshi was bound by stringent bail conditions requiring her to remain in Shillong and therefore posed no flight risk.

The bench ultimately declined to stay the bail order, observing that Raghuvanshi had already been released. "If she is released, then we cannot stay the order," the court said, adding that it had initially been under the impression that she remained in judicial custody.

In a final attempt to persuade the court, Mehta stressed the seriousness of the allegations and referred to recent cases involving women accused of killing their partners, including the Lohagad case. Justice Sundresh responded that such incidents called for introspection by all stakeholders and also referred to another case from Bengaluru.

The Meghalaya government had approached the Supreme Court on Thursday challenging the high court's decision to uphold Raghuvanshi's bail.

A resident of Indore in Madhya Pradesh, Sonam Raghuvanshi was arrested in June last year in connection with the alleged murder of her businessman husband. The couple went missing while holidaying in Meghalaya's Sohra region on 23 May 2025. Raja Raghuvanshi's body was recovered from a deep gorge on 2 June 2025. According to the police, Sonam Raghuvanshi conspired with hired assailants to murder her husband for financial gain.

On 29 June, the Meghalaya High Court dismissed the state government's plea seeking cancellation of the bail granted by the trial court on 27 April. The high court held that the manner in which the grounds of arrest had been prepared reflected a "total non-application of judicious mind".

With PTI inputs